Ssembajjwe Abdul Kiwooma v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (Civil Suit 242 of 2022)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a trespass claim where a licensee under the Electricity Act entered private land and installed transmission lines without prior notice or consent. Section 70 of the Electricity Act confers jurisdiction on the Electricity Regulatory Authority only over compensation disputes where the statutory notice and consent procedures under Section 67 have been followed. Where no notice was given, the landowner may pursue a trespass action in the High Court under its unlimited original jurisdiction. The one-year limitation period in Section 70(2) does not apply to trespass claims outside the Authority's jurisdiction.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits
Facts
In January 2018, the defendant, a licensee under the Electricity Act, constructed a Karuma-Kawanda 400KV transmission line through the plaintiff's kibanja (customary land holding) measuring 50ft by 100ft at Kigavu, Luwero District. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant entered and constructed the transmission line without his consent, knowledge, or prior notice, and without compensating him. The plaintiff filed suit in March 2019 seeking a declaration of trespass and compensation. The defendant raised a preliminary objection contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the Electricity Regulatory Authority has exclusive original jurisdiction over electricity-related disputes under Section 70 of the Electricity Act, and that the suit was time-barred under the one-year limitation period in Section 70(2). The defendant's pleadings did not claim that any notice had been given to the plaintiff before entering the land.
Issues
- Whether the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the Electricity Act vests original jurisdiction over electricity-related disputes by licensees exclusively in the Electricity Regulatory Authority.
- Whether the suit is barred by the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 70(2) of the Electricity Act.
Orders
- Preliminary objection dismissed.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.67(1)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.67(2)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.67(3)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.67(4)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.67(5)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.70(2)
- Electricity Act Cap. 157 s.70(3)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 139(1)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 26
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 3
- Land Act
- Land Acquisition Act
Cases cited (2)
- Nansubuga Nadia v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 1013 of 2018)
- Juma Bitalo v The Attorney General and Another (Civil Suit No. 0150 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.